Racine v. State
Racine v. State
Opinion
The defendant, Wayne Racine, was convicted after a bench trial of the crimes of battery of a person sixty-five years old or older and battery. His attorney apparently filed a written motion waiving a jury trial, and the trial court entered an order granting that motion. Racine complains, and properly so, that he did not waive his right to a jury trial and seeks reversal of his convictions and a new trial.
The Florida Constitution guarantees to each citizen that the “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate.” Art. I, § 22, Fla. Const.; see also Art. I, § 16, Fla. Const. (providing that the accused shall “have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury”). “[A] defendant’s right to a jury trial is indisputably one of the most basic rights guaranteed by our constitution.... ” State v. Griffith, 561 So.2d 528, 530 (Fla. 1990). 1 This guarantee is also contained in the United States Constitution. 2
The error committed by the trial court is that it conducted a bench trial without obtaining a proper waiver from Racine of his right to trial by jury. For a waiver of the right to jury trial to be valid, a waiver form must be signed by the defendant or the defendant must orally waive that right after a proper colloquy with the trial court. Johnson v. State, 994 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2008); Smith v. State, 9 So.3d 702, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A valid waiver of a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial requires either a written waiver signed by the defendant or the defendant’s oral waiver after a proper colloquy with the trial judge.”).
The record before us contains neither a written waiver form nor a transcript showing that Racine orally waived his right to a jury trial before the trial court. The motion signed by Racine’s attorney does not constitute a proper and valid waiver by *957 Racine. See State v. Upton, 658 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1995). We note, parenthetically, that the State concedes the error. Accordingly, we reverse Racine’s convictions and sentences.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
. In Johnson v. State, 994 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2008), the court recently explained that
criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial for serious crimes — i.e., those that "have a maximum penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or more than a $500 fine” — but not petty offenses — i.e., those that "have a maximum penalty of six months’ or less imprisonment or a $500 or less fine.” Reed v. State, 470 So.2d 1382, 1383 (Fla. 1985); see also Whirley v. State, 450 So.2d 836, 839 (Fla. 1984) ("[T]he federal petty crime exception to the jury trial requirement in criminal prosecutions is also an exception under our own constitutional provision.”) (citing Aaron v. State, 345 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1977); Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1973)).
Id. at 962-63. Clearly, Racine had a right to a trial by jury for both crimes he was charged with.
. U.S. Const. art. Ill, § 2, cl. 3 ("The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”); U.S. Const., amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein tire crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law....”)
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Wayne Eugene RACINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published